Supreme Podcast

This week the Supreme Court in the consolidated decision of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius decided the fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, one of the largest social insurance programs in history and a legislative cornerstone of the Obama administration. On this show we will review each aspect of the Court's decision in the healthcare cases. We will issue a separate episode with a review of the other opinions issued by the Court this week. We address the issues in National Federation of Independent Business in the following order: Chapter 1 - Intro Chapter 2 - Basic Principles Chapter 3 - The Healthcare Act Chapter 4 - The Decision - Commerce Power Chapter 5 - The Decision - Taxing Power Chapter 6 - The Decision - Anti-Injunction Act Chapter 7 - The Decision - Medicaid Expansion OPINIONS (click to download) Arizona v. United States (11-182) Miller v. Alabama (10-9646) American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock (11-1179) National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (11-393) United States v. Alvarez (11-210) First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards (10-708)

This week the Court issued eight opinions and granted certiorari to one new case. Our podcast this week comes to you in two episodes. The first, released on Thursday, discusses the first four opinions issued this week. This episode, part 2, discusses the following cases: FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., which concerns whether the FCC's indecency policy is unconstitutional; Knox v. Service Employees, which concerns whether public entities with unionized employment can force non-members of the union to pay special union assessments intended solely for political and ideological expenditures without first providing notice that includes information about that assessment and permitting an ability to opt-in or out; Dorsey v. United States and Hill v. United States, which consider whether the Fair Sentencing Act which reduced the disparity between sentences for crack cocaine and powder cocaine from 100 to 1 to 18 to 1 and, specifically, whether the reductions applied to those who committed their crimes before the Act's enactment but who were sentenced after its enactment; Southern Union Co. v. United States, which considers whether facts relevant to the imposition of substantial criminal fines are to be found by a judge or jury. GRANTS OF CERTIORARI (click on case name to download lower court decision) Smith v. United States (D.C. Circuit) OPINIONS (click to download) Williams v. Illinois (10-8505) Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (11-204) Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter (11-551) Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak (11-246) FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (10-1293) Dorsey v. United States (11-5683) Knox v. Service Employees (10-1121) Southern Union Co. v. United States (11-94) DISSENT FROM DENIAL OF CERTIORARI Fairey v. Tucker (Sotomayor)

This week the Court issued eight opinions and granted certiorari to one new case. In Part I of our broadcast this week we review the following cases: Williams v. Ilinois, wherein the Court considers whether the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause requires live in-Court testimony by a lab technician responsible for a DNA test when the prosecution called an expert witness who relied on the DNA test to reach a conclusion that the defendant’s DNA matched the DNA of the perpetrator of a rape; Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, which considers whether a neighbor of a Michigan Indian tribe can pursue his case against the federal government and a Michigan Indian tribe to stop the use of tribal trust land for an Indian casino. Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, considers whether the federal government has to make full contractual payments to Indian tribes, even when Congress does not make a large enough appropriation to cover all Indian tribal contracts; Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., wherein the Court was asked to decide whether pharmaceutical sales representatives are entitled to overtime pay when they work over forty hours per week. GRANTS OF CERTIORARI (click on case name to download lower court decision) Smith v. United States (D.C. Circuit) OPINIONS (click to download) Williams v. Illinois (10-8505) Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (11-204) Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter (11-551) Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak (11-246) FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (10-1293) Dorsey v. United States (11-5683) Knox v. Service Employees (10-1121) Southern Union Co. v. United States (11-94) DISSENT FROM DENIAL OF CERTIORARI Fairey v. Tucker (Sotomayor)

This week the Court issued two opinions and granted certiorari in two new cases. This week we review the following cases: Evans v. Michigan, the Court considers whether the double jeopardy clause applies to a directed verdict wherein the trial court judge erroneously required proof of a fact that did not constitute an element of the offense and granted an acquittal based on a lack of proof of that fact. Elgin v. Dep’t of the Treasury, the Court considered whether the Civil Service Reform Act grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Merit Systems Protection Board to hear constitutional claims by civil service employees even though the Board cannot decide the claims. Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, the court considers the requirements for certifying a class action lawsuit against the world's largest biotech company who is alleged to have defrauded investors by artificially inflating the price of its stock by making misstatements about its drugs used to treat anemia. We also review the Court's decision this week to deny review to the remaining Guantanamo Bay detainee cases on its docket. GRANTS OF CERTIORARI (click on case name to download lower court decision) Evans v. Michigan (Supreme Court of Michigan) Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds (Ninth Circuit) OPINIONS (click to download) Elgin v. Dep’t of the Treasury (11-45) Parker v. Matthews (11-845) GUANTANAMO DETAINEE RIGHTS Boumedine v. Bush (2006)

The Court this week issued two opinions and review to one new case. We review all three cases on this week’s show. Armour v. Indianapolis concerns whether the City of Indianapolis violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by choosing to reimburse some taxpayers, mostly low and middle income taxpayers, and not others, mostly wealthier taxpayers, for payments into a fund that was ultimately canceled. Bailey v. United States considers whether police may detain a person who is detained incident to a search warrant but prior to the warrant being executed and items being found that would provide cause for detention or arrest. Reichle v. Howards considers whether secret service agents should be entitled to qualified or absolute immunity from a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim where probable cause existed for the arrest but the plaintiff citizen in the case claims that he was arrested only because he made a negative comment to Vice President Cheney about the war in Iraq which two secret service agents took offense to. GRANTS OF CERTIORARI (click on case name to download lower court decision) Bailey v. United States (Second Circuit) OPINIONS (click to download) Armour v. Indianapolis (11-166) Reichle v. Howards (11-1053)

This week the Court issued three opinions and granted certiorari to one new case. We begin this week with the Court's grant of certiorari in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, which considers whether attorneys, journalists, and labor, legal, media, and human rights organizations have standing to challenge the 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which authorizes the government to collect international communications, some of which may include those of law abiding U.S. citizens and residents. We next consider the Court’s decision this week in Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez, an immigration case in which the court decides whether a parent’s years as a lawful permanent resident can be imputed to that immigrant’s child to prevent the child from being removed from the country. Finally, we consider the Court's decision this week in Astrue v. Capato, wherein the Court decides whether a child conceived nearly a year after its father’s death by way of in-vitro fertilization qualifies for survivor benefits under the Social Security Act. GRANTS OF CERTIORARI (click on case name to download lower court decision) Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (Second Circuit) OPINIONS (click to download) Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez (10-1542) Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd. (10-1472) Astrue v. Capato (11-159) Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc. (10-1042) Blueford v. Arkansas (10-1320)

This week the Court issued two opinions, heard four cases in oral arguments and did not grant certiorari, review, to any new cases. We begin with a review of the oral arguments this week in Arizona v. United States, a controversial case concerning federal preemption and how far border states that bear a disproportionate burden of the costs of illegal immigration may go in battling illegal immigration in their state. We next consider the court's opinion and decision in a case we previously covered on the program - Wood v. Milyard - wherein the Court decides whether when a state in habeas corpus case affirmatively states that is does not challenge but does not concede a timeliness challenge may a federal appellate court raise and decide the issue on its own. OPINIONS (click to download) Wood v. Milyard (11-139) United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC (10-9995) ORAL ARGUMENT TRANSCRIPTS AND AUDIO (click to download) RadLax Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank (11-166) Audio Transcript Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak (11-246) Salazar v. Patchak (11-247) Audio Transcript Arizona v. U.S. (11-182) Audio Transcript

The Supreme Court this week issued opinions in four cases, granted certiorari to one new case and heard four cases in oral arguments. We begin this week with a review of the Court's grant of certiorari in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., wherein the Court considers the first sale doctrine codified in section 109(a) of the Copyright Act, which allows the owner of a copyrighted work that was lawfully acquired under the Act to sell or otherwise dispose of the copy without the copyright owner's permission, and whether the first sale doctrine applies to works made and legally acquired abroad and then imported for resale into the United States. We next consider the Court's opinion and decision this week in Filarsky v. Delia, a case which considered whether a private attorney who was temporarily retained by a government entity was entitled to qualified immunity when he was sued for actions he took in his role as an investigator for the government. Next, we review the Court's opinion and decision this week in Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, concerning a case brought by the family of an American citizen seeking to hold the Palestinian Authority liable for the wrongful death of their family member under the Torture Victim Protection Act. The Act authorizes lawsuits against quote "individuals" and the Court resolves the question of whether that word encompasses organizations. Finally, we consider the Court's opinion this week in Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, wherein the Supreme Court considers the process of generic drug approval by the FDA, and under what circumstances a generic drug company may bring a counterclaim against a brand name drug manufacturer when the brand name drug manufacturer challenges the generic drug company for patent infringement. GRANTS OF CERTIORARI (click on case name to download lower court decision) Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Second Circuit) OPINIONS (click to download) Filarsky v. Delia (10-1018) Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority (11-88) Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S (10-844) Kappos v. Hyatt (10-1219) ORAL ARGUMENT TRANSCRIPTS AND AUDIO (click to download) Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (11-204) Audio Transcript Dorsey v. United States (11-5683) Hill v. U.S. (11-5721) Audio Transcript Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter (11-551) Audio Transcript

The Supreme Court this week issued opinions in three cases, granted certiorari to two new case and did not hear any cases in oral arguments. On this episode, we review the Court's opinion this week in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, wherein the Court decided that a uniform policy of strip searches is constitutional, even when it results in the strip search of people who commit minor offenses, such as a traffic violation, and the court's opinion this week in, Rehberg v. Paulk, wherein the court held that absolute immunity bars a lawsuit by a man who was falsely accused of crimes by a DA and the DA's chief investigative officer in grand jury proceedings through the presentation of testimony they knew to be false. OPINIONS (click to download) Vasquez v. United States (11-199) Rehberg v. Paulk (10-788) Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington (10-945) GRANTS OF CERTIORARI (click on case name to download lower court decision) Moncrieffe v. Holder (Fifth Circuit) Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States (Fed. Circuit)

Bill Pruitt review the oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Wednesday debating the question of severability - which concerns whether assuming the individual mandate is unconstitutional the rest of the Healthcare Law can stay in force or whether the individual mandate is so integral to the law that in its absence it is unlikely that Congress would have enacted the rest of the law.

Marc Seltzer reviews the oral arguments on Tuesday this week concerning the key provision under dispute in the Affordable Care Act - the Individual Mandate. The Individual Mandate or “minimum care provision” is contained in §5000A of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and requires most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014.

On Wednesday this week, the Court in oral arguments, considered the expansion of the Medicaid program under the Healthcare Law, which will add approximately 16 million of the uninsured to the medicaid rolls by 2016. Congress has agreed to initially cover 100% of the costs of the newly qualified individuals and 90% of the costs after the year 2020. Medicaid is a program offered by the federal government in which the federal government agrees to cost share the medical care of the states most vulnerable and disadvantaged qualifying citizens in exchange for the state agreeing to the terms of the Medicaid program. The states participation in Medicaid however is voluntary. Currently, however, all states participate in Medicaid. The states, however, are not being given a choice whether to accept the expansion of the Medicaid program - their choice is to either participate in the Medicaid program, in which case costs will be shared with the federal government, or to possibly lose all of their Medicaid funding. The States argue that forcing it to expand its Medicaid programs so drastically goes too far, violating our system of federalism by compelling the states to act. On this episode we review the oral arguments concerning the Medicaid expansion program.

Angela Haen reports on the oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court on Monday regarding the implications of the Anti-Injunction Act on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  If the Anti-Injunction Act applies, then it will prevent the court from determining the issue of the constitutionality of the penalty clause until the year 2015 after a taxpayer has paid the penalty, exhausted administrative remedies and seeks to challenge the law in a federal court.

Rod Ventura reviews the media coverage on Wednesday when the Court ended its last day of oral arguments in the Healthcare case. The Supreme Court on Wednesday considered two question concerning the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (the “Healthcare Law”). First, the Court considered the question of severability - which considers whether assuming the individual mandate is unconstitutional the rest of the Healthcare Law can stay in force or whether the individual mandate is so integral to the law that in its absence it is unlikely that Congress would have enacted the rest of the law. Second, the Court considered the expansion of the Medicaid program under the Healthcare Law, which will add approximately 16 million of the uninsured to the medicaid rolls by 2016. Congress has agreed to initially cover 100% of the costs of the newly qualified individuals and 90% of the costs after the year 2020. Medicaid is a program offered by the federal government in which the federal government agrees to cost share the medical care of the states most vulnerable and disadvantaged qualifying citizens in exchange for the state agreeing to the terms of the Medicaid program. The states participation in Medicaid however is voluntary. Currently, however, all states participate in Medicaid. The states, however, are not being given a choice whether to accept the expansion of the Medicaid program - their choice is to either participate in the Medicaid program, in which case costs will be shared with the federal government, or to possibly lose all of their Medicaid funding. The States argue that forcing it to expand its Medicaid programs so drastically goes too far, violating our system of federalism by compelling the states to act.

Rod Ventura reviews the coverage of the oral arguments on Tuesday and reports on the predictions that the Supreme Court will strike down the healthcare law’s individual mandate. The Individual Mandate or “minimum care provision” is contained in §5000A of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and requires most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014.